AP English Language and Composition 2011 Free-Response ......Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar,

2011 AP® ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION FREE-RESPONSE QUESTIONS (Form B)

© 2011 The College Board. Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. -2-

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION SECTION II

Total time—2 hours

Question 1

(Suggested time—40 minutes. This question counts for one-third of the total essay section score.)

Green living (practices that promote the conservation and wise use of natural resources) has become a topic of discussion in many parts of the world today. With changes in the availability and cost of natural resources, many people are discussing whether conservation should be required of all citizens. Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Then synthesize information from at least three of the sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-written essay that develops a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. Make sure that your argument is central; use the sources to illustrate and support your reasoning. Avoid merely summarizing the sources. Indicate clearly which sources you are drawing from, whether through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. You may cite the sources as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the descriptions in parentheses. Source A (Winters) Source B (Webber) Source C (Friedman) Source D (Samuelson) Source E (graph) Source F (“Energy Savers”)




Source A

Winters, Sevastian. “The Pros and Cons of the United States ‘Going Green’: Is Environmental Consciousness Really All Good?” Associated Content. Associated Content, Inc., 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.

The following is excerpted from an online article about the United States going green.

Note: The article by Sevastian Winters does not appear on this website due to copyright constraints.

The Pros and Cons of the United States "Going Green"Is Environmental Consciousness Really All Good?By Sevastian Winters

The buzzword for the environmentally conscious is "green". Environmentalists want Americans to believe that green is good andthat every other way to live will condemn humanity, and indeed all of nature into an existence that makes Hades look like ClubMed. At the same time, industrialists are clamouring to get out the word that the earth is so resilient that eating coal dust isessential for a long and healthy life. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle. Moderates understand the value of goodstewardship of our natural resources, but they also understand that the conversion process takes time and comes with some heftyprice tags. Here are three benefits to the United States choosing to "Go Green" and three drawbacks that must be considered inany plan to do so.

The Good

• Learning to use our natural resources with respect to how finite they are will serve future generations and prolong the amount oftime that the earth will continue to sustain life. No matter how you view the world's resources, the one thing everyone can agree onis that natural resources do not exist in limitless supplies.

• Creating new environmentally friendly products and refitting the world with such items will create jobs. Jobs in new technologysectors have traditionally been high paying. Going green is good for workers, and therefore good for the economy.

• Necessity is the mother of invention. When laws limit people, human ingenuity finds its foothold and invention takes the place ofconvention. With the introduction of new laws that force companies to find green alternatives come up with inventive plans thatincrease productivity, quality, and in some cases even revolutionize the way we do things.

The Bad

• While going green may be good for the long-term economy, companies are the ones who must shoulder the financial burden ofunsure investments. That which looks possible from the outset is often mired in more hoopla and expense than it is in reality.When companies lose money on such investments, workers lose jobs, companies go under, and the economy crumbles.

• Going green eats up time for productivity. In the 1970's nearly every juice bottle, pop can, and newspaper found its way into alandfill. Today, people stop for an extra few seconds or minutes to separate recyclables from true garbage. While it's arguablygood for the environment, the fact is that 3 minutes per week over 300 million citizens take up 7,800,000,000 man-hours of timeper year. The smallest bits of time taken to go green, when spread out over the whole of the citizenry will adversely affect thegross national product.

• When new industries grab a foothold, old industries will fall by the wayside, causing an avalanche of job loss, financial hardship,and in some cases catastrophic poverty. Imagine if every oil-producing nation was suddenly left without any viable resourcesbecause the world suddenly switched to another form of energy. Those people are our trading partners. The world has goneglobal. To destroy an industry in a developing nation now costs us money and jobs here in the United States.

The Truth

In the long term, going green is a Utopian ideal to which we must aspire if life is to continue on this planet. However in doing so wemust also leave as small a footprint on humanity as we are able. Incentives for invention are worthwhile. Penalties foroverindulgence are worthwhile. It is more important that society train itself in the mindset of good stewardship than it is that theelectric car obliterate the need for oil inside of 10 years. The truth of consummation is that humans will always consume naturalresources. We do so at a lower rate per capita today than we did in the 1970s and that trend is continuing. It is better that the trendcontinue than that humans ever find a single solution that allows us to indulge our whims without a requirement of stewardship.May you enjoy a rainbow of environmental possibilities, the color green among them. 2011 © Associated Content, All rights reserved.

http://contributor.yahoo.com/privacy_policy.html

http://contributor.yahoo.com/terms_of_service.html

sandraeffinger

Text Box

Source A Winters, Sevastian. “The Pros and Cons of the United States ‘Going Green’: Is Environmental Consciousness Really All Good?” Associated Content. Associated Content, Inc., 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.




Source B

Webber, Alan M. “U.S. Could Learn a Thing or Two from Singapore.” Editorial. USA Today. USA Today, 14 Aug. 2006. Web. 17 Aug. 2009.

The following is excerpted from an online editorial in a national newspaper. It’s time to take . . . a look at how Singapore’s transportation policymakers deal with the tyranny of the automobile. Start with Singapore’s general approach to every policy issue. The overarching premise is that the government intends to run the country with a business-driven perspective. That’s an idea you’d think would appeal to President Bush, America’s first MBA chief executive. . . . So what is it that the Singaporean government has crafted as its comprehensive policy approach to the auto? The first thing you need to know is, if you want to buy a car in Singapore, you first must buy a permit to buy a car. . . . The current price is roughly $10,000 for a midsize car. And here’s the policy kicker: The money goes into supporting an efficient, highly developed mass transit system, which today handles about 4 million rides per day, compared with 3 million daily private auto trips. Taxes are the other energy-conserving measure adopted by the Singaporean government. In particular, car buyers pay an annual tax that specifically punishes high-powered, gas-guzzling engines. But for every stick there’s a carrot: The government awards a lump sum tax rebate of 40% of the price of a vehicle to Singaporeans who opt for hybrids. As any public policy wonk will tell you, tax policy is public policy. In the case of Singapore, the policy message is clear: Gasoline is scarce and expensive—and likely only to become more so. Tax policies that encourage conservation and punish waste just make sense. . . . These are just a few of the thoughtfully aligned policy incentives adopted in Singapore. More important, perhaps, Singapore is only one of many places in the world that is making energy conservation and auto management a priority. Just as globalization has made American companies learn from other businesses around the world, so the opportunity exists for mayors, governors and even members of Congress and White House officials to learn from more advanced, more adventurous nations.

“U.S. Could Learn a Thing or Two from Singapore” by Alan Webber, copyright © 2006 by Alan Webber. Used by permission of the author.




Source C

Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, 2008. Print.

The following is excerpted from a book about the need for a green revolution. America has a problem and the world has a problem. America’s problem is that it has lost its way in recent years—partly because of 9/11 and partly because of the bad habits that we have let build up over the last three decades, bad habits that have weakened our society’s ability and willingness to take on big challenges. The world also has a problem: It is getting hot, flat, and crowded. That is, global warming, the stunning rise of middle classes all over the world, and rapid population growth have converged in a way that could make our planet dangerously unstable. In particular, the convergence of hot, flat, and crowded is tightening energy supplies, intensifying the extinction of plants and animals, deepening energy poverty, strengthening petro-dictatorship, and accelerating climate change. How we address these interwoven global trends will determine a lot about the quality of life on earth in the twenty-first century. I am convinced that the best way for America to solve its big problem—the best way for America to get its “groove” back—is for us to take the lead in solving the world’s big problem. In a world that is getting hot, flat, and crowded, the task of creating the tools, systems, energy sources, and ethics that will allow the planet to grow in cleaner, more sustainable ways is going to be the biggest challenge of our lifetime. But this challenge is actually an opportunity for America. If we take it on, it will revive America at home, reconnect America abroad, and retool America for tomorrow. America is always at its most powerful and most influential when it is combining innovation and inspiration, wealth-building and dignity-building, the quest for big profits and the tackling of big problems. When we do just one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, we are greater than the sum of our parts—much greater.




Source D

Samuelson, Robert J. “Selling the Green Economy.” Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 27 Apr. 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.

The following is excerpted from an online article in a national newspaper. Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here’s a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): “For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.” This sounds too good to be true, because it is. . . . The claims of the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmentalists . . . rely on economic simulations by “general equilibrium” models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that’s roughly 11 cents a day per person. The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: There are no business cycles; the economy is always at “full employment”; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes—if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global-warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of “clean energy” magically materialize. There’s no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. . . . Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today’s fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require “500 million acres of U.S. land—more than the total of current U.S. cropland.” America would have to become a net food importer. . . . The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming—from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases—they also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability.

From The Washington Post, © 04/27/2009 The Washington Post. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing, copying, redistribution, or retransmission of the Material without express written permission is prohibited.




Source E

Rheault, Magali. “In Top Polluting Nations, Efforts to Live ‘Green’ Vary.” Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 22 Apr. 2008. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.

The following is excerpted from an article on the results of polls on environmental awareness conducted in 2007. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India together account for 54% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions, which represent the largest share of man-made greenhouse gases. Gallup Polls conducted in 2007 show that American and Japanese residents express the highest levels of environmental stewardship.

Copyright © 2008 GALLUP. Reprinted with permission. All Rights Reserved.




Source F

United States. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Savers Booklet: Tips on Saving Energy & Money at Home. 6 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.

The following is excerpted from a Web site published by the United States Department of Energy. Did you know that the typical U.S. family spends about $1,900 a year on home utility bills? Unfortunately, a large portion of that energy is wasted. And each year, electricity generated by fossil fuels for a single home puts more carbon dioxide into the air than two average cars. And as for the road, transportation accounts for 67% of all U.S. oil consumption. The good news is that there is a lot you can do to save energy and money at home and in your car. Start making small changes today.

• Install a programmable thermostat to keep your house comfortably warm in the winter and comfortably cool in the summer.

• Use compact fluorescent light bulbs with the ENERGY STAR® label. • Air dry dishes instead of using your dishwasher’s drying cycle. • Turn off your computer and monitor when not in use. • Plug home electronics, such as TVs and DVD players, into power strips; turn the power strips off when the

equipment is not in use (TVs and DVDs in standby mode still use several watts of power). • Lower the thermostat on your hot water heater to 120°F. • Take short showers instead of baths. • Wash only full loads of dishes and clothes. • Drive sensibly. Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration and braking) wastes gasoline.

AP® ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION 2011 SCORING GUIDELINES (Form B)


Question 1 The score should reflect a judgment of the essay’s quality as a whole. Remember that students had only 15 minutes to read the sources and 40 minutes to write; the essay, therefore, is not a finished product and should not be judged by standards appropriate for an out-of-class assignment. Evaluate the essay as a draft, making certain to reward students for what they do well. All essays, even those scored 8 or 9, may contain occasional lapses in analysis, prose style, or mechanics. Such features should enter into your holistic evaluation of an essay’s overall quality. In no case may an essay with many distracting errors in grammar and mechanics be scored higher than a 2. ______________________________________________________________________________________

9 Essays earning a score of 9 meet the criteria for a score of 8 and, in addition, are especially sophisticated in their argument, thorough in development, or impressive in their control of language.

8 Effective Essays earning a score of 8 effectively develop a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They develop their position by effectively synthesizing* at least three of the sources. The evidence and explanations used are appropriate and convincing. Their prose demonstrates a consistent ability to control a wide range of the elements of effective writing but is not necessarily flawless.

7 Essays earning a score of 7 meet the criteria for a score of 6 but provide more complete explanation, more thorough development, or a more mature prose style.

6 Adequate Essays earning a score of 6 adequately develop a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They develop their position by adequately synthesizing at least three of the sources. The evidence and explanations used are appropriate and sufficient. The language may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but generally the prose is clear.

5 Essays earning a score of 5 develop a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They develop their position by synthesizing at least three sources, but how they use and explain sources is somewhat uneven, inconsistent, or limited. The argument is generally clear, and the sources generally develop the student’s position, but the links between the sources and the argument may be strained. The writing may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but it usually conveys the student’s ideas adequately.

_____________________________

* For the purposes of scoring, synthesis means referring to sources to develop a position and citing them accurately.

AP® ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION 2011 SCORING GUIDELINES (Form B)


Question 1 (continued) 4 Inadequate Essays earning a score of 4 inadequately develop a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They develop their position by synthesizing at least two sources, but the evidence or explanations used may be inappropriate, insufficient, or less convincing. The sources may dominate the student’s attempts at development, the link between the argument and the sources may be weak, or the student may misunderstand, misrepresent, or oversimplify the sources. The prose generally conveys the student’s ideas but may be less consistent in controlling the elements of effective writing.

3 Essays earning a score of 3 meet the criteria for a score of 4 but demonstrate less success in developing a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They are less perceptive in their understanding of the sources, or their explanation or examples may be particularly limited or simplistic. The essays may show less maturity in control of writing.

2 Little Success Essays earning a score of 2 demonstrate little success in developing a position on the extent to which government should be responsible for fostering green practices. They may merely allude to knowledge gained from reading the sources rather than citing the sources themselves. These essays may misread the sources, fail to develop a position, or substitute a simpler task by merely summarizing or categorizing the sources or by merely responding to the prompt tangentially with unrelated, inaccurate, or inappropriate explanation. The prose often demonstrates consistent weaknesses in writing, such as grammatical problems, a lack of development or organization, or a lack of control.

1 Essays earning a score of 1 meet the criteria for a score of 2 but are undeveloped, especially simplistic in their explanation, weak in their control of writing, or do not cite even one source.

0 Indicates an on-topic response that receives no credit, such as one that merely repeats the prompt. — Indicates a blank response or one that is completely off topic.

© 2011 The College Board.Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.









AP® ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION 2011 SCORING COMMENTARY (Form B)


Question 1 Sample: 1A Score: 9 Displaying an impressive command of language (despite a few minor errors that are in the nature of a first draft), this essay creates a balance between considering government involvement in and individual responsibility for the green movement. Making a clear distinction between immediate, short-term factors (e.g., taxes on polluters) and distant, long-term ones (e.g., enforcing the Clean Water Act), the student also illustrates how the two are related. For example, on page 3 the essay notes that “the little steps taken” to address environmental issues can have lasting impact. Within the essay, the student evaluates numerous factors that influence how much the government should be responsible for fostering green practices, ultimately taking the position that the public’s role is as important as the government’s: “Policy is important, but so is individual action, as parts really do make up a whole.” This position takes into consideration both sides of the issue, as it responds, for example, to people who do not believe in global warming. Throughout the essay, the student synthesizes the evidence fully, creating an effective response that is especially sophisticated in its argument and thorough in its development. Sample: 1B Score: 5 The essay presents a position and supports it with at least three sources for evidence. However, the logic explaining this evidence is limited. For example, in paragraph 2, the essay states that if “America were to break free of its wasteful habits,” other leading countries “would be quick to act as well.” The student’s argument is generally clear, but the links between the sources and the argument are sometimes strained, as on page 3: “True, companies may lose money and worker’s [sic] ‘3 minutes per week’ (Winters) would be energy aimed towards this cause of going green, but as the old saying goes ‘it has to get worse before it gets better.’” With its uneven use of evidence, this essay earned a score of 5. Sample: 1C Score: 2 This essay demonstrates little success in its discussion of “going to green environmt [sic],” responding to the prompt with inaccurate and inappropriate evidence. For example, the student exaggerates the claims of the green movement to assume that its goal is to “not cut trees and build factories.” Furthermore, this essay does not use any sources in its discussion. Though the student does allude to some sources (e.g., the discussion of green practices destroying the economy and the discussion of recycling), the connections are implicit at best. The prose demonstrates consistent problems in grammar and usage.

Documents

AP English Language and Composition 2011 Free-Response ......Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar,